4 ms·

Why didn’t they use the one provided by the tax cuts a few years back?

jonas21 6y ago
They'd still have to pay 21% on it. They're probably waiting for a tax holiday like the one in 2004 where companies could bring back cash at a 5.25% tax rate.
- hpen 6y ago
  That is just sick. They should pay a tax rate at least as high as what the average worker pays if not higher
  - briandear 6y ago
    Why? How about lowering taxes for the “average worker?”
    - baddox 6y ago
      Those certainly aren't mutually exclusive ideas.
    - vkou 6y ago
      Because cutting taxes will cut spending, and military spending is a sacred cow, so among the useful things the government provides, the average worker needs things like roads and a working school system, and healthcare when they get to Medicare age.
    - hpen 6y ago
      I think we should only tax income over some number like $100k. If the money doesn't feed you then it's should be taxed higher. Nobody needs a nice car. People need food
  - Alupis 6y ago
    5.25% of $200 Billion is $10.5 Billion. How much in taxes does the average worker pay over their lifetime? Not to mention, this money was already taxed, just in another country where that money was earned. Seems like a good deal, to bring that money back into our economy and get it spent on goods and services domestically. "We'll allow you to bring back $185 Billion and spend it here locally, helping the entire economy, but only if you pay us $10.5 Billion!" I'd be OK with zero tax on this money. Get it flowing back into the economy where it can do real good things. The US Government isn't going to miss $10.5 Billion at the rate we're already giving it away to people. The alternative is what we have already. Everyone loses; no one gets any piece of that money in the US.
    - hpen 6y ago
      "How much in taxes does the average worker pay over their lifetime?" How much does the average worker make over their lifetime? Not fucking 200Bn
      - Alupis 6y ago
        So the question becomes, do you want $200 Billion or zero? Right now, we get zero, and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be able to come up with some way to compel them to give us a sinlge penny of it.
        hpen 6y ago
        Do you mean 10 Billion or zero?
        Alupis 6y ago
        If people can be ok getting a small piece, sure. But, from the looks of it, many are unhappy with that amount, let alone something like 20%.
        skinnymuch 6y ago
        $200B is the full amount. Not 20%. The OP said do you mean $10B because of it being 5% of $200B
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    Why do you think companies should be taxed? Most people who want to tax corporations actually just want to tax the super-villanous rich people. But here's an interesting idea: just tax rich people more. By increasing costs for all companies, you are making products more expensive for all consumers. It's effectively a regressive tax. You also need to remember that a majority of Americans are invested in the stock market[1]. A healthy economy is good for everyone. I believe that money that gets paid out from a company to investors (dividends) should be taxed as regular income, but the income of the company itself should be untaxed. That way we avoid the distortionary effects of double-taxing money but we still tax the evil rich people you're so concerned about. [1]https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
    - Klinky 6y ago
      It might work if we did tax the super rich more, but we don't, we often tax them less through capital gains. Taxless corporations would become vehicles for tax avoidance/evasion. The stock market is not "the economy", "the economy" is not doing too well, but the stock market keeps steaming along while a lot of people struggle and congress does its handwringing over the cost of meager stimulus packages. Maybe some extra tax revenue would be useful. Dividends can already get special tax treatment, and many corporations are averting taxation entirely. For a lot of situations we're already at your ideal scenario in a round about way, except we're failing to tax the super rich.
    - hpen 6y ago
      I'm not concerned about the "evil rich". Apparently you are though. I'm more concerned about how that tax revenue could benefit society.
    - pydry 6y ago
      >By increasing costs for all companies, you are making products more expensive for all consumers. It's effectively a regressive tax. Taxing profits has zero impact on costs. The most it would affect is the viability of companies that are on the border of profitable/not profitable because it would detract from their ability to attract capital. Apple is quite possibly the furthest away from this scenario you could possibly imagine. Taxing their profits will have zero impact on apples costs. >here's an interesting idea: just tax rich people more The funny thing is that whenever you try to do that a coterie of economically illiterate paid-to-be-wrong journalists come out telling you how much you're ruining things for everybody else and how little the rich will really be affected. You can almost measure the actual impact of a tax by the intensity of the screams in the popular press about how much the average joe will get screwed and how little the rich will be affected. And, of course, taxes that really are like that get branded differently - they're "necessary evils" or simply just ignored.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    Corporate taxes create a huge amount of deadweight loss and disproportionately effect workers. Taxing the income of the rich is a much more effective way to do what you want. There are many many econ papers on this, go ahead and google it.
    - pydry 6y ago
      ? The exact opposite is true. Taxing revenue and salaries affects workers and the overall health of the company. Taxing profits affects mainly just shareholders - especially for larger companies. There are several papers on this.

They'd still have to pay 21% on it. They're probably waiting for a tax holiday like the one in 2004 where companies could bring back cash at a 5.25% tax rate.

hpen 6y ago
That is just sick. They should pay a tax rate at least as high as what the average worker pays if not higher
- briandear 6y ago
  Why? How about lowering taxes for the “average worker?”
  - baddox 6y ago
    Those certainly aren't mutually exclusive ideas.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Because cutting taxes will cut spending, and military spending is a sacred cow, so among the useful things the government provides, the average worker needs things like roads and a working school system, and healthcare when they get to Medicare age.
  - hpen 6y ago
    I think we should only tax income over some number like $100k. If the money doesn't feed you then it's should be taxed higher. Nobody needs a nice car. People need food
- Alupis 6y ago
  5.25% of $200 Billion is $10.5 Billion. How much in taxes does the average worker pay over their lifetime? Not to mention, this money was already taxed, just in another country where that money was earned. Seems like a good deal, to bring that money back into our economy and get it spent on goods and services domestically. "We'll allow you to bring back $185 Billion and spend it here locally, helping the entire economy, but only if you pay us $10.5 Billion!" I'd be OK with zero tax on this money. Get it flowing back into the economy where it can do real good things. The US Government isn't going to miss $10.5 Billion at the rate we're already giving it away to people. The alternative is what we have already. Everyone loses; no one gets any piece of that money in the US.
  - hpen 6y ago
    "How much in taxes does the average worker pay over their lifetime?" How much does the average worker make over their lifetime? Not fucking 200Bn
    - Alupis 6y ago
      So the question becomes, do you want $200 Billion or zero? Right now, we get zero, and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be able to come up with some way to compel them to give us a sinlge penny of it.
      - hpen 6y ago
        Do you mean 10 Billion or zero?
        Alupis 6y ago
        If people can be ok getting a small piece, sure. But, from the looks of it, many are unhappy with that amount, let alone something like 20%.
        skinnymuch 6y ago
        $200B is the full amount. Not 20%. The OP said do you mean $10B because of it being 5% of $200B
- dahfizz 6y ago
  Why do you think companies should be taxed? Most people who want to tax corporations actually just want to tax the super-villanous rich people. But here's an interesting idea: just tax rich people more. By increasing costs for all companies, you are making products more expensive for all consumers. It's effectively a regressive tax. You also need to remember that a majority of Americans are invested in the stock market[1]. A healthy economy is good for everyone. I believe that money that gets paid out from a company to investors (dividends) should be taxed as regular income, but the income of the company itself should be untaxed. That way we avoid the distortionary effects of double-taxing money but we still tax the evil rich people you're so concerned about. [1]https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
  - Klinky 6y ago
    It might work if we did tax the super rich more, but we don't, we often tax them less through capital gains. Taxless corporations would become vehicles for tax avoidance/evasion. The stock market is not "the economy", "the economy" is not doing too well, but the stock market keeps steaming along while a lot of people struggle and congress does its handwringing over the cost of meager stimulus packages. Maybe some extra tax revenue would be useful. Dividends can already get special tax treatment, and many corporations are averting taxation entirely. For a lot of situations we're already at your ideal scenario in a round about way, except we're failing to tax the super rich.
  - hpen 6y ago
    I'm not concerned about the "evil rich". Apparently you are though. I'm more concerned about how that tax revenue could benefit society.
  - pydry 6y ago
    >By increasing costs for all companies, you are making products more expensive for all consumers. It's effectively a regressive tax. Taxing profits has zero impact on costs. The most it would affect is the viability of companies that are on the border of profitable/not profitable because it would detract from their ability to attract capital. Apple is quite possibly the furthest away from this scenario you could possibly imagine. Taxing their profits will have zero impact on apples costs. >here's an interesting idea: just tax rich people more The funny thing is that whenever you try to do that a coterie of economically illiterate paid-to-be-wrong journalists come out telling you how much you're ruining things for everybody else and how little the rich will really be affected. You can almost measure the actual impact of a tax by the intensity of the screams in the popular press about how much the average joe will get screwed and how little the rich will be affected. And, of course, taxes that really are like that get branded differently - they're "necessary evils" or simply just ignored.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Corporate taxes create a huge amount of deadweight loss and disproportionately effect workers. Taxing the income of the rich is a much more effective way to do what you want. There are many many econ papers on this, go ahead and google it.
  - pydry 6y ago
    ? The exact opposite is true. Taxing revenue and salaries affects workers and the overall health of the company. Taxing profits affects mainly just shareholders - especially for larger companies. There are several papers on this.